RESUMEN
Background: The Serious Illness Conversation Guide (SICG) was developed by Ariadne Labs in the United States. However, there is a scarcity of literature on the cross-cultural adaptations of the SICG in Asian settings. Objectives: We aimed to adapt the SICG for English-speaking patients with serious illnesses in Singapore. Methods: We purposively recruited 28 patients with advanced stages of heart failure, renal failure, or cancer from a tertiary hospital. A designated research team member conducted semistructured interviews to obtain participants' feedback on the SICG. The interviews were transcribed by the designated study team member. Participants' response to each item on the SICG was coded quantitatively into categories to denote participant acceptance, partial acceptance, or nonacceptance. Transcripts were further analyzed using content analysis to understand participants' rationale regarding feedback of the specific SICG item. Modifications to the SICG were iteratively made over time to obtain its current version. Results: Participants indicated a preference for direct language with shorter sentences and inclusive pronouns. It was considered important that clinicians keep the conversation hopeful, individualize the conversation content according to the patient's journey, and use prompts where necessary to support the patient's elaboration. Conclusion: This study outlined a patient-centric approach to localizing the SICG in the English language to a new cultural context, marking the first such effort in an Asian setting. Further study is under way to evaluate the SICG in more disease populations and non-English languages used in Singapore.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: The Accessible Cancer Care to Enable Support for Cancer Survivors (ACCESS) program adopts a multidisciplinary supportive care model with routine distress screening to triage newly diagnosed cancer survivors for additional support on the basis of distress levels. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical impact of ACCESS over 1 year. METHODS: We performed cluster random assignment at the oncologist level in a 1:1 ratio to receive ACCESS or usual care. Participants 21 years and older, newly diagnosed with breast or gynecologic cancer, and receiving care at National Cancer Centre Singapore were included. Outcomes assessed every 3 months for 1 year included quality of life (QoL) (primary), functioning, physical and psychological symptom burden, and activity levels. Data were analyzed using mixed-effects models. RESULTS: Participants from 16 clusters (control = 90, intervention = 83) were analyzed. The ACCESS program did not significantly improve QoL (primary outcome). However, compared with usual care recipients, ACCESS recipients reported higher physical functioning (P = .017), role functioning (P = .001), and activity levels (P < .001) at 9 months and lower psychological distress (P = .025) at 12 months. ACCESS recipients screened with high distress had poorer QoL, lower role and social functioning, and higher physical symptom distress at 3 months but had comparable scores with ACCESS recipients without high distress after 12 months. CONCLUSION: Compared with usual care, participation in the ACCESS program did not yield QoL improvement but showed earlier functioning recovery related to activities of daily living and reduced psychological distress. Routine distress screening is a promising mechanism to identify survivors with poorer health for more intensive supportive care.